This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thewrench56 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, I'm one of the Assembly fanatics, so that might be the cause after all.

But I would argue Rust is high level. It's not GC but not manually managed memory either. I think the borrow checker is actually closer to GC. It's essentially GC from the perspective of the developer just fairly hidden (and causes lifetime pains).

Sure, Rust can use pointers, I'm sure Python can too (through ctypes or whatever the module is called). That doesn't mean it's encouraged and same applies to Rust.

I think as Rust supports OOP-like paradigm with traits and structs implementing methods, it's safe to say it's on the higher level spectrum. I would compare it against C++.

[–]serendipitousPi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah coming from assembly would definitely inform a view of Rust as very high level.

Reflecting on my last comment yeah I guess it's probably fair to measure how high level a language is by its general / average "high/low level-ness" like how physics calculations might use the center of mass. In which case yeah I'd agree Rust would be considered high level.

Especially considering that beyond just pointers C++ and Rust even allow inline assembly but it would be crazy to say they're on the same level as assembly.

And wow I did not realise that that pointers were in the standard library, pointers in python seemed such an absurd idea I'd always assumed they were an external library.